due care and attention

[legolastheel]

My partner was driving to work in the rush hour the weather was extremely wet so she was keeping her distance, however, as per usual someone saw the gap and pulled in then the broke hard causing her to run into his rear. She has been charged with driving without due care and attention.
Is it worth pleading not guilty and arguing that because of the conditions and other road users it was impossible to keep a safe distance????

[Toureman]

If your defence is, "it was impossible to keep a safe distance" you will certainly loose the case.

I can see what your wife means but it is always the fault of the car behind.

[noselittle]

So if I pull in front of someone and slam on with no witnesses I'd win the case sinply because its always the person behinds fault? Not every time. Its worth giving it a go. But only if she can prove a suitable arguement.

[legolastheel]

Not really using as a defence as we all know you dont have a leg to stand on when hitting the rear of somebody, more as a mitigating circumstance to get a more lenient punishment.

[Jay70]

It's not always the person behinds fault , this is a popular misconception. If you run into the back of someone after they have pulled out of a side road it is their fault not yours. I know this isn't whats happened here but people always just incoorectly say that without looking at the facts.

[derekpara]

This accident was caused by human error. The question is , whose error ? It is seems obvious that the error must be shared between the two parties, but in what proportions? 50/50 ? 60/40 ? To prove that your partner was less to blame than the other driver she would need at least one independent witness.

In one breath you say ' she was keeping her distance' and in the next ' it was impossible to keep a safe distance.'

In the conditions you describe , she should have allowed at least double the normal safe stopping distance for good conditions. Difficult, I know, but that is what will be argued in court. Sadly, I don't think she stands a chance, and largely due to the actions of an impatient nitwit.

[kempie]

derekpara - how is it possible to maintain a safe distance from a car which cuts infront of you and then immediately brakes?

[legolastheel]

Exactly that is my point , it is virtually impossible to keep a safe distant when there is so much traffic weaving in and out of lanes all trying to gain the advantage!!!!
I drove her to work this morning and in the 6 mile journey saw 2 near misses due to people driving this way.

[Gef]

I am surprised that she has been charged at all - assuming no one was seriously injured. Have the Police nothing better to do?

However, I know what you mean. You leave a safe gap and some idiot pulls into it. So you drop back and some other idiot pulls in etc.

Personally I think the person that cuts in should be charged.

Good luck.

[derekpara]

If a car cuting in front has to brake violently the gap is either too short or the driver is being malicious. The offending car in question did not suddenly appear in front of LEGO's partner - there surely must have ben some reaction time. And you should always leave enough room for faster traffic to overtake and move in - and be prepared for the unexpected.

Now don't get me wrong; I am 100% on this lady's side and I think the overtaker must share a lot of the blame, but I don't see how she can win her case without witnesses.

Any traffic police out there to contribute ?

[Keeprockin]

I'd argue that the person cut in so quickly they almost took the front of my car off,and you applied your anchors but as the other car was already slamming on,you were obviously a split second later. Also bear in mind,there have been a lot of cases recently of such incidents being deliberately staged to get compen from car insurance companies.
Argue the case,that's if your insurance are prepared to

[derekpara]

Keeprockin, this lady has struck a car from behind. There are no witnesses. Would you really encourage her to go to court and argue her case ?

[Keeprockin]

I would have put that on the statement to police/insurance and probably would have had to accept their decision,which is usually the most convenient for them